Benchmark: 1htrghdr - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;

Tests:

flat
arr.flatMap(x => x/100)
map
arr.map(x => x/100)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
flat
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON represents a single benchmark with two test cases: `map` and `flat`. This benchmark is testing the performance difference between using the `flatMap` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2019) and the traditional `map` method in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **FlatMap**: The `flatMap` method returns a new array with the results of applying an optional callback function to each element of the original array.
2. **Map**: The traditional `map` method returns a new array with the results of applying a provided function to each element of the original array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **FlatMap**
	* Pros:
		+ Returns a new array, avoiding mutation of the original array.
		+ Can be more concise and readable when used with callback functions.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new array.
2. **Map**
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster, as it doesn't require creating a new array.
	* Cons:
		+ Mutates the original array (in this case, an empty array `arr`).
		+ May not be as concise or readable with callback functions.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In both test cases, no specific JavaScript library is used. However, note that the `flatMap` method is a part of the ECMAScript standard and has been supported by most modern browsers since its introduction in 2019.

No special JavaScript features are mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

For the traditional `map` method, alternative approaches could include:

* Using a `forEach` loop instead of `map`.
* Utilizing a library like Lodash, which provides an implementation of `flatMap`.

For the `flatMap` method, alternative approaches might include:

* Using the `reduce()` method to achieve similar results.
* Employing a third-party library that supports `flatMap`, as some older browsers or environments may not have native support.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely change the benchmark's behavior and performance characteristics.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code creates an empty array `arr` and populates it with numbers from 0 to 100,000 using a while loop. This serves as a simple input for both test cases.

The HTML preparation code is set to null, indicating that no specific HTML-related setup or testing is required for this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 122 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
flat	497.4 Ops/sec
map	728.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

1htrghdr (version: 0)

1

Comparing performance of: flat vs map

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

flat

map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):